“I let him reach.”
Unarmed(?) is NOT undangerous.
For many years, journalists have been careful to state that alleged suspects who may have committed an alleged crime may have been allegedly arrested by alleged police officers. They continue this practice today, with the exception of the important statement that the police are certainly guilty of something.
bump
If he was tasered twice and it didnt effect him, he was on something.
I want to see the tox report...tased twice with no effect???
What is so hard for some people to understand abot this...
Cop pulls you over. Or comes to the door. You do what he says.. You live to fight it out in court..
OR....
You resist arrest. Cop has a reason to shoot. He usually uses hollow points. You wind up in a hospital paralyzed for life or on a stainless steel table wearing nothing but a toe tag...
I know which option I would choose...
21 foot rule. They could’ve shot sooner.
Bookmark
Is it not a distinct possibility that given there was a restraining order on Mr. Blake from going to this home, that the children in the SUV were not in his custody? Is is not then a further possibility that the children were in the SUV - the keys which Mr. Blake took from the woman who called - not by their mother’s consent? So doesn’t this seem as though he was attempting to kidnap the children and perhaps do bodily harm? Furthermore, is it not reasonable to think the police officer shot Mr. Blake in the back at close range (after attempted tasering failed) so as to not shoot into the vehicle and harm the children? Once Mr. Blake was in the car and in possession of the knife, it would be extremely difficult to keep him from harming the children without also injuring them in the process.
“I let him reach.”
The trouble is the author seems to mistake what legal experts and cops consider ‘reasonable use of force’ with what ordinary people (voters) do. For people not in the law enforcement field, a person without a gun is not someone who should EVER be shot unless they are holding a hostage with a knife and there is *NEVER* a reason to shoot someone in the back, or seven times. You can have all the ‘experts’ in the country say otherwise but those same ‘experts’ aren’t the ones who ultimately make the laws. You don’t shoot someone 7 times in the back, period, and anybody saying otherwise is just doing a massive favor to the Biden campaign and the Democrat party.
Where was the officer’s effort to de-escalate the situation? Control was lost when the two officers failed to control/subdue the suspect and allowed him to reach the vehicle. Then the officer decided to shoot inside of a car full of kids 7 times (ricochets?)in the suspect’s back (failing to kill him by the way, nice shooting). Where was the concern for the kids at this point? Once they failed to control him and he reached the car they should have backed off and called hostage negotiators. Bottom line is these inept cops handling of this situation will never be used as the proper way to resolve a domestic by training officers around the country. And, by the way I’m a former cop with domestic situation experience. Officers nowadays are too quick to use deadly force instead of deploying all of the tools at their disposal.